At Jimmy Scott’s High and Tight, former Met Eric Valent tells the story of being the 25th man on the roster, playing in Japan, and, eventually, transitioning from player to coach to scout. Insightful stuff.

WHEN Dwight “Doc” Gooden attended the Mets’ Opening Day ceremonies at Citi Field last week, he stopped by the Ebbets Club along the first-base line and mingled with fans who cheered him during his Mets career. He shook hands, took pictures and signed autographs.

Someone thought it would be a nice idea if one of the greatest pitchers in franchise history signed a blank gray wall next to the bar. Gooden obliged, taking a black Sharpie and writing in script “Doc Gooden 84 R.O.Y., 85 Cy Young, 86 W.S. Champs.”

Gooden took a picture next to the signature, and so did countless fans lucky enough to afford the price of a ticket that allows them access to the club.

But now the Mets – who have been criticized for not showcasing enough of their history in their new ballpark – plan to erase Gooden’s signature from the wall, treating it as if it were unwanted graffiti.

Read the whole article here. Granted, it’s a little strange that Gooden autographed a wall, but it’s not like he could have posed for pictures in front of a photograph of himself or the ’86 Mets – from what I’ve heard, those photographs are nowhere to be found at the new ballpark.

When you think about it, it’s amazing that Gooden is still alive, much less visiting the new ballpark and interacting with fans. Leave it to Mets management to step in and screw it up.

The fact is, Gooden DID autograph the wall and now that it is there, it should be left alone. It should be allowed to become part of the stadium and part of the team’s history. The minutiae and folklore of this team – like skydivers, black cats and Bill Buckner – are created and shared by players and fans. Ownership can build the ballpark, assemble a roster and sell the tickets, but they can’t control the memories. Unfortunately, that is exactly what they are trying to do.

It was not the most auspicious start for a new ballpark — at least, not for the home team — but the list of “firsts” has already begun. Print this out and keep it handy for future trivia buff gatherings.

The good, the bad, and the ugly of Citi Field, brought to you in pictures. View the photos, read my remarks, and form your own opinion … or wait another two weeks and try to scalp a ticket so you can see the place for yourself.

Thanks to fellow blogger Andrew Vazzano of TheRopolitans, I was able to attend the very first baseball game ever played at Citi Field, between the St. John’s Red Storm and the Georgetown Hoyas.

While there, I took a bunch of pictures to give you an idea of what the new stadium is like. Unfortunately, the day was dreary, with gray skies and a constant mist, so all the photos came out similarly drab and colorless. Since there have been several photo and video “tours” on other blogs, I’ve tried to assemble more esoteric points of interest around the park.

What was most strange about this day was that it is likely the only time the stadium will look so sparse of spectators, despite being a sellout. All 42,000 seats were sold — within 45 minutes of going on sale on the internet — yet the majority of folks were walking around the inner guts of the stadium to check everything out rather than sitting in their seats.

All photos have been published as a series, and this is article number one. More than 20 photos and descriptions are included, to guide you through this virtual tour of Citi Field on a rainy Sunday afternoon. Click the links below this post to navigate through.

… I, along with the Office of Athletic Communications, was to help in broadcasting the game online via St. John’s University’s sports website.

The weather was less than desirable; mist was coming down which created a cool dampness outside. We had been advised to wear St. John’s University polo shirts, provided for us, to the game as well as rain proof jackets. Because of this, I wore my Phillies jacket to the field.

… It was after the ceremonial first pitch (John Franco) and the national anthem that I was approached by another co-worker who insisted that I put on the jacket. He informed me that he is a Mets fan and he understands where I am coming from, but that I have to put on the jacket. I told him that in no way did it affect how I was to do my job, therefore I could not justify doing so. I said, “If I was wearing a Mets jacket, would this even be a problem?” He told me everyone had to wear the jackets. I pointed out that two of my fellow student workers were wearing their own jackets. I even offered to compromise by wearing the St. John’s University jacket beneath my Phillies jacket. He dismissed the idea and left.

I returned my attention to my camera. Moments later, the head of the department rumbled up the platform and stood beside me. I looked to my side.

He said, “You have to take off your jacket.”

I replied, “In no way does it affect the job I am doing. It is a nonissue.”

He responded by saying, “It is an issue with the Mets. You can either put on the jacket or leave.”

“Then, I’m leaving.”

I walked over to Paul, shook his hand and told him it was a pleasure to meet him. In doing this, the head of the department reaches from behind and yanks my press pass out of my free hand. I exited the platform and began to walk to the doors to leave. The head of the department followed me.

“Are you really going to do this?”

I replied, “Yes.” Then, I left the building.

If you read the entire article, you can get the gist that this fan was not looking to intentionally tick anyone off, but at the same time wasn’t about to be told what he should or shouldn’t be wearing. I can’t really blame him — especially considering that this was a college game, with no actual Mets players in sight.

There’s a possibility that people were just yanking his chain, and that no Mets official actually insisted that he take off the jacket. Indeed, I’m sure if this creates a storm (pardon the pun … St. John’s Red Storm, get it?), the Mets will say they never did such a thing and someone must have been playing a prank.

In any case the kid was pretty calm and collected about the entire ordeal.

Because I was not informed of the Mets organization’s disapproval of my attire firsthand, I can only speculate if there really was an issue with the Mets, or if it was St. John’s Athletic Department’s last ditch efforts in forcing me to remove my jacket. Every Mets staff member that I spoke with was very pleasant and accommodating. I appreciated their courteousness and lack of judgment.

The fact that I was removed from Citi Field for not removing my jacket is absurd to me. I was working at a NCAA baseball game, not even a Mets game. There should never have been an issue in such a setting. I highly doubt an event similar to this would occur at Citizen’s Bank Park at a Phillies, or a non-Phillies game.

I did not wear the jacket to incite people. By no means am I a confrontational individual. I am proud of my baseball team, just as the Mets fans are of theirs. I would have acted in the same way regardless of my attire. I stood my ground for what I believe in, and did so without anger or hostility.

Here’s an up-close shot. This is probably the first and last time you will ever see the New York Mets listed on the out-of-town scoreboard, and on the American League side to boot.

There are some really cool features with the out-of-town scoreboard at Citi Field — for example, the uniform number of the current pitchers are on the left, there are red lights telling you how many outs there are, and green lights on a mini-diamond let you know the runners on. But, there’s one annoying and vital issue with this “state of the art” scoreboard — you don’t know which team is at bat! So, yeah, it’s first and third with one out in the fourth inning, but we don’t know which team has runners on first and third. MAJOR FAIL! Maybe it’s a glitch that will be resolved by Opening Day.

“The Treasury Department, which forced Citigroup corporate executives to give up their private jet, should also demand that Citigroup cancel its $400 million advertisement at the Mets field and instead being to repay their debt to the taxpayers.”

Hat tip to MetsToday reader “wohjr” for the link.

An intriguing proposal, to say the least. On the one hand, Citi did enter into a contract with the Mets, and what’s the point of a contract if one side decides to, um, bail out? Further, doesn’t the company need to continue advertising and promoting their brand? For example, if the US bails out GM, does that mean they should stop doing TV commercials? Tough question.

On the other hand, would Citigroup gain enough customers in the next 20 years to justify the $400M investment? Hard to say, as I’m not a marketing forecaster.

From the perspective of the average joe, smattering your name across a baseball stadium when you’re broke doesn’t look so great. It could, in fact, be argued that Citigroup will LOSE customers as a result of continuing with their sponsorship. It doesn’t matter if Citi takes that $400M and spends it on a rash of TV commercials, magazine ads, and PR events — the guy on the street can’t SEE that money being spent.

Naturally, there’s also the point that taxpayers have been partially funding the stadium’s construction … so why isn’t the taxpayer’s name on the front of the park?

From the Mets fans’ perspective, it’s just as murky. Without Citi’s name on the stadium, the Mets have $20M less to work with every year — which more or less pays for Johan Santana’s contract. Since the team appears to already be penny-pinching, would such a loss in revenue result in payroll cuts? Would the team begin to operate even more like a small-market club? Of course, there’s also the possibility that they are able to get another, more lucrative sponsor for the stadium. Though, it’s hard to imagine someone stepping up with big bucks in this economic climate — unless the company is Google or Raytheon.

Many have been speculating that the Mets disinterest in big names such as C.C. Sabathia and Manny Ramirez was due to the Bernie Madoff scandal. Perhaps. And, perhaps they are also bracing for the possible loss of Citi’s $400M commitment.